View source for R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18

{{Case
|Date=2010/01/27
|NCN=[2010] EWCA Civ 18
|ICLR=[2010] WLR (D) 20
|ICLR ID=2006002101
|Other citations=[2010] 1 WLR 1782, (2010) 112 BMLR 140, 112 BMLR 140
|Court=Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
|Judges=Waller, Carnwath, Patten
|Parties=D, M, EM, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
|Judicial history first case=R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin)
|Sentence=Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners
|Summary=(1) That prisoners detained under [[s47]], [[s47/49]] or [[s45A]], in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under [[Article 14]] taken with [[A1P1]]. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date.
|Detail===Subsequent legislation==
Because the construction argument (see point (2) above) went against the government, they changed the law. See:
*{{lsum|Social Security (Persons Serving a Sentence of Imprisonment Detained in Hospital) Regulations 2010}}

==Details==
#'''Discrimination issue.''' The discrimination against transferred prisoners, as opposed to civil patients or hospital order patients, is justified and therefore not unlawful. The one exception is technical lifers, who ''are'' entitled to benefits in the same way as hospital order patients. The reasons given on appeal were essentially the same as those given by the judge below: see [[R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin)]]. 
#'''Construction issue.''' The [[Income Support (General) Regulations 1987]] concern eligibility for Income Support. Regulation 21 and Schedule 7 deal with special cases, including prisoners transferred to hospital under the MHA. The 1987 regulations were amended by the [[Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2005]] so that such a patient could not receive Income Support unless "detention continues after the date which the Secretary of State certifies or Scottish Ministers certify would have been the earliest date on which he could have been released in respect of, or from, the prison sentence if he had not been detained in hospital". The [[State Pension Credit Regulations 2002]] concern eligibility for State Pension Credit, and were amended in the same way. The judicial review revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "the earliest date on which he could have been released". The SoS interpreted this as the date on which a prisoner was ''entitled'' to be released, and therefore detained lifers were never entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit . The claimants argued that the date was the tariff expiry date, because they ''could'' have been released then. At first instance the SoS won. The claimants were successful on appeal, essentially because theirs was the natural interpretation and it did not lead to an absurd result.
|External links=*[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8335846/Rapists-and-killers-demand-right-to-benefits.html David Barrett, 'Rapists and killers demand right to benefits' (Daily Telegraph, 19/2/11)]
|Subject=Welfare benefits cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2021/03/10 10:07:18 PM
}}